have you switched from Eden to Thunderfunk??

PLEASE ONLY RESPONSES FROM EDEN LOVERS WHO HAVE SWITCHED TO THUNDERFUNK...thanks!

As some of you know I've been recently gushing about my Eden WT300 experience, minus the shutdown.

I am thrilled with the thick, round, heavy, full sound of the eden WT300. I have ruled out the particular unit because of the shutdown issue. I am seriously looking at a Eden WT550, maybe a Thunderfunk 550 if I can find one in the twin cities to audition.

Here is what I'm afraid of if I buy a TF blind without hearing it: I'm afraid it might be not as full/round/thick etc as the Eden. I've gotten burned before on "this is the best ____ ever, no regrets..." kinda posts.

FORMER EDEN LOVERS:
"why did you finally switch to thunderfunk?"

"Can I get the 'Eden sound' from the thunderfunk spectrum of sound?"

"Do you have any regrets about the thunderfunk experience?"

"any TF'ers in the twincities??" please PM me if you'd like to get together for me to audition your TF.

I used an Eden400 (which Eden updated with the WT550) in the past, and have been using a Thunderfunk550 for about a year now. I've also A/B'd the TF with an Eden800 and a WT550.

The TF550 and Eden550 output volume into 4ohms is very close, and the tone is relatively similar IMO. The TF is a little more SS sounding...a little tighter in the low end and a little 'quicker' in response. The Eden550 has a little more 'tube bloom' in the low end. However, you can get both within spitting distance of one another IMO.

I prefer the TF build quality, looks, and that very punchy, tight low end versus the EdenWT500. I also like the idea of buying from a small, responsive company, and actually being able to talk (through email) with the builder of the amp. I've also heard continued good things about Eden service also.

If you like the sound of the 300, you would be very happy with either the TF or the WT550 (which has the identical pre as the old 300 with more power). The tone controls are very similar (really the only difference is the Timbre control... which is very nice, and the switch which is also nice, if subtle on the TF). The TF weighs a little less and costs a little more.

I guess it would come down to if you want that little bit of 'tube warmth' in your sound vs. total clean punch. I absolutely love my Thunderfunk, but would have no problem playing out of a WT550 for the rest of my days... both great amps IMO. If you love the sound of the 300, and only need more power, the WT550 seems to be a 'no brainer'!

I use a TFB420, wt800B, and Navigator/qsc-plx 1602 pretty well interchangably.
I use the TFB probably 90% of the time due to it's lighter weight and ease of transport of either of my eden rigs.
I see the primary advantage to me with the TFB is twofold, the timbre knob is pure genius, and the 4 band vs 3 band para eq is nice too.
I think they're both great rigs, and I'm keeping them all. I've been working real hard at drumming up more work...that way I can use them more often.

Seems like maybe your primary question is "can the TFB emulate the edens big beefy sound." The answer is "most definately yes. It does a damn fine DB750 imitation as well, which is an amp also well known for it's beef.
TFB=no lack of beef. It also can throw down the slap and smack real well too.
Tough call there mate, that's why I own both, I guess. That and I'm just nuts.

I own an Eden WT400+, WT800B and a Thunderfunk TFB520 (the precursor to the TFB550). Both are excellent choices, although I have to say that the Eden WT400 has more low end clout than my TFB520. However, I generally use the TFB at small venue gigs over the WT400 as the sound is tighter and I tend to want to control the bass more in a smaller room where the Eden can get quite boomy.

However, I use the WT800B for larger venues with two cabs, and split the frequency between my EA CXL112 and my Epifani T210UL. This gives much greater control over the bottom but I can't be bothered to take this set up to smaller gigs.

The bottom line is that both my Eden's have a thicker bottom end over my TFB, but the TFB has a lot of strengths in the mid range, especially with the Switch option. I don't think I would get rid of my Eden's for a Thunderfunk, but it's great to have both.

I own an Eden WT400+, WT800B and a Thunderfunk TFB520 (the precursor to the TFB550). Both are excellent choices, although I have to say that the Eden WT400 has more low end clout than my TFB520. However, I generally use the TFB at small venue gigs over the WT400 as the sound is tighter and I tend to want to control the bass more in a smaller room where the Eden can get quite boomy.

However, I use the WT800B for larger venues with two cabs, and split the frequency between my EA CXL112 and my Epifani T210UL. This gives much greater control over the bottom but I can't be bothered to take this set up to smaller gigs.

The bottom line is that both my Eden's have a thicker bottom end over my TFB, but the TFB has a lot of strengths in the mid range, especially with the Switch option. I don't think I would get rid of my Eden's for a Thunderfunk, but it's great to have both.

You're right, it is a 420EU (the 500 watt version of the basic 420) It also has a switcheable power supply like the 550. As it is a 500 watt amp I keep referring to it as a 520.

Click to expand...

That makes sense... cool! I agree with your comments regarding the low end... the Eden is definately wider and bigger.... but like you, for many situations, the tighter, quicker low end works better for me.

I bet that UL210/EA112CXL sounds nice... I always found the 210UL to sound a little too scooped sometimes, and the EACXL112 a little too 'mid oriented'.... so.. putting them together must give you the best of both worlds.

Wanted to find out what all the buzz was about. Bought on reputation alone, but those were reps from folks whose opinions I generally agree with. Has served me well in the past.

"Can I get the 'Eden sound' from the thunderfunk spectrum of sound?"

Click to expand...

Probably, but if you specifically just want the Eden sound, stick with Eden. Why buy a honda and ask if can be adjusted to drive like a toyota?

"Do you have any regrets about the thunderfunk experience?"

Click to expand...

No, tho I also love the Eden sound AND the TFB is a different sound. Here's why...

First, I'm somewhat new to the TFB, but I don't see my opinion changing based on results so far anyway.

I LOVE the Eden tone when praciticing or recording, but live, I find it's a bit easier to get lost in the mix due to it's "width". As such, I stopped using it live and started using a GK. Worked much better, but still not quite "the one". Got an EBS, and started using that full time, but due to its scooped base tone, I had to add mids (even Marcus says he bumps 400 sometimes). Really, the main reason for the EBS' is its power/weight ratio (awesome) and the compressor... oh, the compressor... heaven.

So here comes the TFB... everything I've read says it's got the kind of chest pounding thump to cut through anything, but without being thick and dull sounding. So far, dead on. Like KJung says, not as "wide" sounding as the Eden, but I think that's why I was getting buried anyway. Also like KJung says, the low end is much tighter and more focused. This is VERY practical and also pleasing to the ear in the overal mix when playing with others (IMHO). It's more like you can really hear all of the bass instead of mostly the high end sizzle and a low end "presence".

Now, keep in mind both amps have really powerful EQ sections, so either one could probably be adjusted any way you like, tho I'll definitely have to give the TFB props for way more tone controls, and like Chef says, more TYPES of tone controls, which is GREAT to have as venues change so radically. He's also right about the Timbre knob being so unbelievably powerful. KJung is also right that the switch is REALLY useful, despite it's misleading subtlety.

Disclaimer: I PERSONALLY have not yet gigged with it live, but all these tonal characteristics I HAVE heard in practice. Next Friday, I'll be able to say with true authority if I still agree with my current assertions and others' opinions, but I seriously doubt I'll change my mind based on what I've done so far.

Hope this helps, and wish I lived closer. I'd be only too happy to let you check it out, and barring conflicts, even gig with it.

+1 on that... actually, maybe 'the switch' that is now labeled SS/Tube can actually be modified to make the Tube setting an actual tube. That would make sense to me, and I bet would be pretty awesome.

Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that...

Remember our PM discussion about the possibility of his changing the preamp design somewhat with the switch circuit in the B version? I wonder if he's laying the groundwork now. I can definitely tell you there is some electrical isolation between the two settings, but w'out schematics, that's as specific as I can be at the moment.

Remember our PM discussion about the possibility of his changing the preamp design somewhat with the switch circuit in the B version? I wonder if he's laying the groundwork now. I can definitely tell you there is some electrical isolation between the two settings, but w'out schematics, that's as specific as I can be at the moment.

Now, keep in mind both amps have really powerful EQ sections, so either one could probably be adjusted any way you like, tho I'll definitely have to give the TFB props for way more tone controls, and like Chef says, more TYPES of tone controls, which is GREAT to have as venues change so radically. He's also right about the Timbre knob being so unbelievably powerful. KJung is also right that the switch is REALLY useful, despite it's misleading subtlety.
(...)

Click to expand...

might as well finally add my two cents to the pot that's already growing...

agreed that the EQ's are powerful, but in their own ways.

the TFB has a 4 stage semi-para EQ along w/ the timbre and enhance knob, which i find more useful vs. the Eden's 3 stage w/ enhance. more EQ options makes it that much easier reaching joker-tone.

and yet, the taper on the Eden EQ section is much more dramatic, which i prefer over the TFB. the tapers on the TFB dont really kick in for me until about 3:00 or 9:00 on the dial, no matter the cab, epifani, acme, rental SWR, etc., which i found a touch frustrating.

also, FYI, i barely touch the enhance knob on either, unless i'm recording, which helps alleviate that dryness when going DI'd into the board. to me, "enhance" is like the reverb on a guitar amp. gives you that space and depth. but use it too much, and you disappear in the mix, so for live, they're always off.

the real ace in the hole for the TFB is in the timbre knob. like to tinker? using the timbre and paraEQ does wonders. want something plug 'n play? spin the timbre knob and BOOM, great tone. and, its amazing how it taylors to whatever room i'm working. too much flub, roll it back, and it cleans up the mess beautifully. and while, i'm realizing the "switch" isnt a necessity to me, its always nice to have.

also, i usually defeat the built in limiters/compressors on most amps, but i've really been digging the thickening nature of the TFB's. and for me that's saying ALOT. the Eden's is a bit more subtle, and actually sounds more "studio" like, when i'm recording.

tonally, its a toss up. i still prefer the Eden with its pillowy (yes, pillowy) tubey air that translates beautifully with my sadowsky's. but, my MTD 635 sounds like a punch/slap monster w/ the upfront, inyourface, uber fast yet strangely warm TFB. enough of an excuse for me to keep both for my Acme / Epifani rigs.

I went with Eden. They are REAL close I A/B'd Kens Thunderfunk thru an Epifani 310UL and I would agree with every thing thats been said. One other thing to keep in mind, Their is a cost difference. The Thunderfunk is 1249, the street on the Eden is about 929. 320 $ is not chump change. But both are excellent amps and Dave is great guy to work with. My feeling is this, if a majority of my playing was slap I'd go with the Thunderfunk. If my playing leaned more to classic rock/blues fingerstyle I'd go with the Eden.

...and yet, the taper on the Eden EQ section is much more dramatic, which i prefer over the TFB. the tapers on the TFB dont really kick in for me until about 3:00 or 9:00 on the dial, no matter the cab, epifani, acme, rental SWR, etc., which i found a touch frustrating.

Click to expand...

This is very true, but has the opposite effect on me. The reason is, I always felt the Eden stuff was TOO sensitive... I rarely turned any of the EQ more than a click or two in any direction. The TFB makes me feel like I have a bit more control. Admittedly, however, my Eden doesn't have the parametric... just the bass, mid, and treble, tho I understand the parametric has just as sensitive gain/cut, so I figure this is still applicable.